Baloney. The sons and daughters and wives of the founders were citizens -- but they couldn't vote. The couldn't run for office. They couldn't hold land. They were simply along for the ride. They weren't citizens with full rights.
"The people" had full rights. They had ties to the country. They were the ones with something to lose. They were the ones who ran the country -- the rich white guys.
They comprised the Militia and it was their right to keep and bear arms that was protected by the second amendment and no one else's.
In 1792.
In fact your argument was tried yesterday.
By Ginsburg.
Here is the text, although I know you won’t bother reading it:
(Ginsburg tries to argue)
JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you were thinking of
“the people,” what those words meant when the Second
Amendment was adopted, it was males between the ages of
what — 17 and 45? People who were over 45 had no —
they didn’t serve in the militia.
(Gura points out...)
MR. GURA: Well, certainly, there were many
people who were not eligible for militia duty, or not
subject to militia service, who nevertheless were
expected to, and oftentimes did, in fact, have guns.
(Scalia shoots Ginsburg down and renders the argument moot)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Which shows that maybe
you’re being unrealistic in thinking that the second
clause is not broader than the first. It’s not at all
uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional
provision to go further than is necessary for the
principal purpose involved.
The principal purpose here is the militia,
but the — but the second clause goes beyond the militia
and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Now, you may say the kind of arms is colored
by the militia. But it speaks of the right of the
people. So why not acknowledge that it’s — it’s
broader than the first clause?
(Gura agrees)
MR. GURA: Well, we do acknowledge that,
Your Honor.
Don’t bother responding unless you can refute these facts. For those who are interested, it’s on ppgs. 55-56 of the transcripts